From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ard Biesheuvel Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/14] arm64: efi: remove forbidden values from the PE/COFF header Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:31:31 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1486554947-3964-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <1486554947-3964-6-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20170210101329.GD28753@leverpostej> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170210101329.GD28753@leverpostej> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Mark Rutland Cc: "linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , Leif Lindholm , Catalin Marinas , Russell King , kernel-hardening-ZwoEplunGu1jrUoiu81ncdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org, Laura Abbott List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On 10 February 2017 at 10:13, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 11:55:38AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> Bring the PE/COFF header in line with the PE/COFF spec, by setting >> NumberOfSymbols to 0, and removing the section alignment flags. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel > > I take it that in practice EFI implementations don't care about these? Not at all. I just spotted it when I was cleaning up the header. > Assuming so: > > Acked-by: Mark Rutland > > Otherwise, we might want to fix this first, so that we can easily > backport it. > I wouldn't bother From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org (Ard Biesheuvel) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:31:31 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v2 05/14] arm64: efi: remove forbidden values from the PE/COFF header In-Reply-To: <20170210101329.GD28753@leverpostej> References: <1486554947-3964-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <1486554947-3964-6-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20170210101329.GD28753@leverpostej> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 10 February 2017 at 10:13, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 11:55:38AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> Bring the PE/COFF header in line with the PE/COFF spec, by setting >> NumberOfSymbols to 0, and removing the section alignment flags. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel > > I take it that in practice EFI implementations don't care about these? Not at all. I just spotted it when I was cleaning up the header. > Assuming so: > > Acked-by: Mark Rutland > > Otherwise, we might want to fix this first, so that we can easily > backport it. > I wouldn't bother From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170210101329.GD28753@leverpostej> References: <1486554947-3964-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <1486554947-3964-6-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20170210101329.GD28753@leverpostej> From: Ard Biesheuvel Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:31:31 +0000 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v2 05/14] arm64: efi: remove forbidden values from the PE/COFF header To: Mark Rutland Cc: "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Leif Lindholm , Catalin Marinas , Russell King , kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, Laura Abbott List-ID: On 10 February 2017 at 10:13, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 11:55:38AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> Bring the PE/COFF header in line with the PE/COFF spec, by setting >> NumberOfSymbols to 0, and removing the section alignment flags. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel > > I take it that in practice EFI implementations don't care about these? Not at all. I just spotted it when I was cleaning up the header. > Assuming so: > > Acked-by: Mark Rutland > > Otherwise, we might want to fix this first, so that we can easily > backport it. > I wouldn't bother